MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392295205 · doi:10.1145/3649888

A Dual-Particle Approach for Incompressible SPH Fluids

2024· article· en· W4392295205 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shusen Liu, Xiaowei He, Yuzhong Guo, Chang Yue, Wencheng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Graphics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPeking UniversityNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaUniversity of TorontoNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDual (grammatical number)CompressibilitySmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsParticle (ecology)Fluid simulationComputer sciencePhysicsMechanicsClassical mechanicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tensile instability is one of the major obstacles to particle methods in fluid simulation, which would cause particles to clump in pairs under tension and prevent fluid simulation to generate small-scale thin features. To address this issue, previous particle methods either use a background pressure or a finite difference scheme to alleviate the particle clustering artifacts, yet still fail to produce small-scale thin features in free-surface flows. In this article, we propose a dual-particle approach for simulating incompressible fluids. Our approach involves incorporating supplementary virtual particles designed to capture and store particle pressures. These pressure samples undergo systematic redistribution at each time step, grounded in the initial positions of the fluid particles. By doing so, we effectively reduce tensile instability in standard SPH by narrowing down the unstable regions for particles experiencing tensile stress. As a result, we can accurately simulate free-surface flows with rich small-scale thin features, such as droplets, streamlines, and sheets, as demonstrated by experimental results.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on GraphicsSame topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207